Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The claims received 4/1/2026 have been entered. Claims 3-4, 8, and 11-13 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil et al (US 4,732,432), in view of Wolf et al (US 6,485,122), in view of Nam et al (US 6,266,970), and in further view of Kesling (US 3,338,451).
Regarding claim 1, Keil discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a wrapper (109) having a wall portion and a flange portion (106) with a transverse portion disposed therebetween (angled portion between wall and flange as shown in figure 3), wherein the flange portion of the wrapper extends outwardly in a forward direction from the transverse portion of the wrapper and is substantially parallel to the wall portion of the wrapper;
a liner (48) spaced-apart from the wrapper to define an insulated cavity therebetween, wherein the liner includes a wall portion and a flange portion (102) with a transverse portion disposed therebetween (angled portion between wall and flange as shown in figure 3), wherein the transverse portion of the liner is an angled portion extending outwardly towards the wrapper, and further wherein the flange portion of the liner extends outwardly in a forward direction from the transverse portion of the liner and is substantially parallel to the wall portion of the liner, and further wherein the transverse portion of the wrapper is an angled portion extending inwardly towards the liner;
a thermal bridge (100) having a first channel (formed by 138), a second channel (formed by 140) and a third channel (formed by 108), wherein the first and second channels are inset from the third channel, wherein a portion of the flange portion of the wrapper is received in the first channel, and further wherein a portion of the flange portion of the liner is received in the second channel, wherein the first and second channels are rearwardly opening channels, and further the third channel is a forwardly opening channel; and
a heater disposed in the third channel (4:40-45 describes the heater location in regard to figure 2, in the context of the heater to prevent sweating at the outer surface of the thermal bridge it is understood to apply the heater to the third channel).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keil lacks that the cavity is vacuum insulated. Wolf discloses the use of open cell foam that is evacuated to form vacuum insulation (5:26-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Keil with vacuum insulation as taught by Wolf in order to provide a robust construction with a high resistance to heat transfer.
Keil lacks circulating a heated medium in the third channel. Nam discloses a conduit (60) received in a third channel (formed by 80), wherein the conduit is configured to circulate a heated medium around a perimeter of the refrigerator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Keil with a conduit as taught by Nam in order to reduce sweating at the front surface of the refrigerator. Moreover while Keil discloses using heat at the front surface, the reference is largely silent concerning precise means for implementation. Some solution is necessary it falls to mere selection of an identified predictable solution such as that provided by Nam in order to make or use the invention.
Keil lacks that the second distance is greater than the first distance (in regard to the distance inward from the third channel to the first and second channels, respectively). Rather as shown in figure 3 the distance is the same, the thermal bridge has symmetry. It has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that the first and second channels receive the wrapper and liner and thus they must extend inward a sufficient distance to reach and receive said components. Further the third channel receives a heater and thus is at a generally front area of the bridge in order to prevent or reduce the forming of condensation. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only three potential solutions to the relation of the first and second distances: the first distance is greater, the second distance is greater, or they are the same. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the second distance greater than the first distance would have not yielded unpredictable results, since such may be formed to merely accommodate installation conditions and would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. Kesling evidences a thermal bridge, often called a breaking strip (42), that extends inwardly a greater distance on the liner side (see channel receiving liner 38) than the wrapper side (see channel receiving wrapper 26). As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the accommodating installation constraints is a necessary part of a design process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second distance to be greater than the first distance, as a matter of trying a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to fit the thermal bridge to a refrigerator having differing extensions of a liner and wrapper, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Keil discloses the first and second channels of the thermal bridge are spaced-apart from one another (first and second channels identified in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 5, Keil as modified discloses left/right openings to the refrigerant and freezer compartments and thus lacks upper and lower openings. The examiner takes official notice that horizontal mullions for refrigerator/freezer compartments are old and well known, e.g. top or bottom mounted freezers. It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Keil provides for openings to refrigerator and freezer compartments. Official notice evidences that top/bottom refrigerator/freezer arrangements are old and well known. Merely applying the known mullion of Keil to the known purpose of diving top/bottom freezer/refrigerators is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Keil and Nam disclose the conduit surrounds the upper and lower openings of the thermal bridge (the conduit of Nam surrounds the opening as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Keil discloses the thermal bridge includes a sealing surface (124), and further wherein the third channel is disposed along the sealing surface.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil et al (US 4,732,432), in view of Wolf et al (US 6,485,122), and in further view of Kesling (US 3,338,451).
Regarding claim 9, Keil discloses a refrigerator comprising:
a liner (48) received within a cavity of a wrapper (24) to define an insulated cavity therebetween, wherein the wrapper and the liner each include a wall portion and a flange portion with an angled transverse portion disposed therebetween (shown in annotated figure 3 above), wherein the transverse portion of the wrapper is angled inwardly towards the liner, wherein the transverse portion of the liner is angled outwardly towards the wrapper, and further wherein the flange portion of the wrapper extends further in a forward direction than the flange portion of the liner (different extensions shown in figure 2); and
a thermal bridge (100) interconnecting the wrapper and liner and having first and second channels, wherein a portion of the flange portion of the wrapper is received in the first channel, and further wherein a portion of the flange portion of the liner is received in the second channel (shown in annotated figure 3 above), wherein the thermal bridge includes a sealing surface (124), wherein the thermal bridge further includes a third channel (108) that is forwardly opening channel, wherein the first and second channels are inset from the third channel.
Keil lacks that the cavity is vacuum insulated. Wolf discloses the use of open cell foam that is evacuated to form vacuum insulation (5:26-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Keil with vacuum insulation as taught by Wolf in order to provide a robust construction with a high resistance to heat transfer.
Further while the wrapper 24 of figure lacks a transverse and flange portion, as the connection is secured by ‘spot welding’ (3:37) the transverse and flange style connection for both the wrapper and liner is shown (as detailed in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the wrapper 24 of figure 2 of Keil with the transverse and flange portions in order to provide secure connection without an additional process, i.e. welding. In other words the different extension distances as shown in figure 2 is provided to figure 3 OR the dual flange and transverse portion style connection of figure 3 is provided to figure 2).
Keil lacks that the second distance is greater than the first distance (in regard to the distance inward from the third channel to the first and second channels, respectively). Rather as shown in figure 3 the distance is the same, the thermal bridge has symmetry. It has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I) (E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), it should be noted that the first and second channels receive the wrapper and liner and thus they must extend inward a sufficient distance to reach and receive said components. Further the third channel receives a heater and thus is at a generally front area of the bridge in order to prevent or reduce the forming of condensation. As per (2), based on the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only three potential solutions to the relation of the first and second distances: the first distance is greater, the second distance is greater, or they are the same. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the second distance greater than the first distance would have not yielded unpredictable results, since such may be formed to merely accommodate installation conditions and would not change the principles of operation of the prior art, nor would it render the prior art inoperable for its intended purpose. Kesling evidences a thermal bridge, often called a breaking strip (42), that extends inwardly a greater distance on the liner side (see channel receiving liner 38) than the wrapper side (see channel receiving wrapper 26). As per (4), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the accommodating installation constraints is a necessary part of a design process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second distance to be greater than the first distance, as a matter of trying a finite number of predictable solutions, in order to fit the thermal bridge to a refrigerator having differing extensions of a liner and wrapper, without yielding unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Keil discloses the first and second channels are rearwardly opening channels (first and second channels identified in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 15, Keil discloses the thermal bridge is comprised of a material having a lower coefficient of thermal conductivity as compared to the sheet metal material of the wrapper and the liner (thermal bridge is formed of “resinous plastic” 4:67 moreover wrapper 24 is spot welded to steel frame 35 and thus is understood to also be steel).
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that it is known to construct refrigerator wrappers and liners from metals such as steel and aluminum. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Keil with steel or aluminum in order to provide robust construction.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Keil, as modified, discloses the refrigerator of claim 15 including the first and second channels but lacks adhesive at said channels.
In the previous office action on the merits the Examiner took Official Notice that adding adhesive to a connection is old and well known. In his subsequent reply to this office action, the applicant did not traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by Applicant. See MPEP §2144.03(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Keil with adhesive at the first and second channels in order to enhance the connections and prevent moisture ingress into the insulated space.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil et al (US 4,732,432), in view of Wolf et al (US 6,485,122), in view of Kesling (US 3,338,451), and in further view of Nam et al (US 6,266,970).
Regarding claim 14, Keil as modified discloses the refrigerator of claim 13. Keil lacks circulating a heated medium in the third channel. Nam discloses a conduit (60) received in a third channel (formed by 80), wherein the conduit is configured to circulate a heated medium around a perimeter of the refrigerator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Keil with a conduit as taught by Nam in order to reduce sweating at the front surface of the refrigerator. Moreover while Keil discloses using heat at the front surface, the reference is largely silent concerning precise means for implementation. Some solution is necessary it falls to mere selection of an identified predictable solution such as that provided by Nam in order to make or use the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
The examiner agrees that the first and second distances in regard to Keil are the same distance; however as discussed above in further view of Kesling it follows to have differing first and second distances in order to accommodate differing installation constraints.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tate, Jr. et al (US 4,330,310) plastic mullion rail.
Horvay (US 4,114,065) condenser tube
Frank (US 3,835,660) heating tube.
Tenhundfeld et al (US 6,464,312) door breaker.
Hodges (US 6,655,766) door breaker.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights